I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Zombie Acorn, Oct 2, 2009.

  1. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #1
    Apparently this early humanoid walked on 4 legs in trees and 2 legs on ground. Supposed to be the "missing link".

    http://topnews.us/content/27493-scientists-unveil-fossils-44-million-year-old-pre-human-ancestor

    An international team of researchers Thursday unveiled the fossils from 4.4 million-year-old 'hominid' - comprising pre-human species and their kin - unearthed in the Awash region of Ethiopia in the beginning of 1994.

    The researchers, led by paleoanthropologist Tim White at the University of California, Berkeley, said that the extensive fossil trove - comprising 36 males, females and a young of an ancient prehuman species called Ardipithecus ramidus - reveals that human predecessors were more modern than what the scholars had presumed till now.

    The highlight of these remains is the skeleton of a female found to be at least a million years older than the iconic skeleton of Lucy, the primitive female figure that has thus far been considered ancestor of the human species.

    The 4-foot-tall female, nicknamed 'Ardi', who has become the best known human forebear, is actually a distant cousin of Lucy's line, Australopithecus afarensis.

    Saying that the 'Ardi' discovery further widens the evolutionary gap that separates humankind from apes and chimpanzees, White remarked: "Ardi is not a chimp. It's not a human. It's what we used to be. It gives us a new perspective on our origins. We opened a time capsule from a time and place that we knew nothing about."

    Further, White also added that though Ardi is not the last common ancestor, "it's the closest we've come to the last common ancestor."
     
  2. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #2
    Re: I wonder if this will impact the 50% creationist believers in the US...

    Yes, it will. About as much as the Bible impacts the non-creationist believers in the US. Just saying.
     
  3. Tilpots macrumors 601

    Tilpots

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Location:
    Carolina Beach, NC
    #3
    Does it ever? You can lead a horse to water...
     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4
    The difference is that this discovery is based on facts. The bible isn't.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    And it also doesn't break the metaphor of how god created the world as given in the bible.
     
  6. DavieBoy macrumors 6502

    DavieBoy

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #6
    The devil put that skeleton there to fool you. Its so obvious.
     
  7. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #7
    And what facts are those? Please enlighten us, wise one. Oh right. You think that dead monkey is your great great great grandfather. How cute.
     
  8. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #8
    Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or has an agenda.
     
  9. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #9
    Is this how evolution works?

    Or another way to put it is religion is unnecessary. It can be yielded at whim to explain things in an every narrowing gap as scientific knowledge increases. Or it can exist as the supernatural.
     
  10. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #10
    Posts like his prove evolution. Some people have evolved past monkeys enough to put letters together to form words, but haven't evolved enough to put those words together to form a rational thought.
     
  11. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #11
    I think it proves that statistics like the one in the OP arise from a neglectful level of science education in schooling. To call a spade a spade it is scientific illiteracy.
     
  12. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #12
    And posts like yours prove that darwin was wrong. You'd think the lower end of the gene pool would weed itself out, but nope, they just keep popping up.
     
  13. gibbz macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #13
    +1.

    I grew up with a religious upbringing and yet I am a scientist.

    I have always viewed science as man's attempt to explain the physical world in terms that we all understand. That doesn't mean that because science defines something that it can't also be attributable to God. It just means that we have defined terms within the scope of our own understanding, which is very limited in the grand scheme of things.

    I don't understand religious folks who hate science or science folks who hate religion. Neither precludes the other.
     
  14. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #14
    Although a wonderfully delivered slight, intelligence doesn't really have that much to do with reproductive ability. So again you're really showing a misunderstanding of evolution.
     
  15. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #15
    Science will never be able to explain everything, and from the dawn of humanity people have used a variety of methods to try and understand the world around them and why things happen the way they do. The two great sources of "truth" have always been the gaining of empirical knowledge and belief in the supernatural.

    I'm convinced this will never change for the majority of humanity. We will never become a planet of atheists/humanists, regardless of the high status science has in the modern world, just as we will never be a planet of believers. Almost everyone falls somewhere in between.

    Science has never suggested that God does not exist (indeed it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the supernatural), while any religion that dismisses science or rejects scientific inquiry is overly dogmatic.

    Unfortunately dogmatism is endemic.

    Something proven time and time again I'm afraid.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Exactly.

    If I were the creator of the universe I wouldn't create all the animals and their changes manually - I'd setup an algorithm to do it for me, as its far less work.

    Just because evolution exists isn't proof that god doesn't give life a helping hand occasionally, or that god didn't initially create life.
     
  17. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #17
    Is belief in the supernatural really searching for or providing truth?

    Depends on how you look at it. Science has most definitely proven that the majority of the fantastic claims attributed to the christian god in the bible are completely bunk. It's proven that the claims attributable to the greek gods are complete bunk. It's proven that the claims made by the aboriginal supernatural giant snakes are complete bunk. And on and on. Science is forever releasing us from the misguided explanations of the supernatural. Evoking the supernatural at any stage just doesn't make any sense nor is it required for anything. It's an arbitrary adjunct.

    But evoking the supernatural here (in the guise of a Judeo-Christian god nonetheless) is completely unnecessary. Why does some supernatural entity need to have made the algorithm. We have shown that the algorithm works and arises without any supernatural input. It's adding a completely unnecessary and unprecedented level of complexity to a problem with a simple solution.

    An interventionist god giving life "a helping hand" is something that can be tested and detected scientifically. And that god created life is also a scientific claim. One that we have pretty strong scientific evidence to the contrary. And our understanding of abiogenesis is increasing every single day. To evoke god in this gap is very shaky ground.
     
  18. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #18
    I think it does for believers, it provides a truth. Finding answers through religious means is very satisfying for billions of people and does not necessarily have to involve repudiating scientific truth (though there are plenty of examples of that happening, some harmless enough, others catastrophic).

    Very much so. If you take the Bible as a literal truth, I agree with you that it is not an accurate description of events. It is a combination of oral history and myth.

    There is a kernel of truth in what you say, but I think you take it too far for most people. If it works for you, that's fine, but most people want to believe in the supernatural in some form, and you can interpret that as either an undesirable characteristic that science "releases" us from, or something more closely tied with humanity itself.

    Science will never replace humanity's desire for the spiritual, just as history has taught us that religion without any science (or at least secularism) can breed unnecessary suffering and repression. I fully respect your position and even agree with most of your criticisms of religion, but (and I doubt I'm telling you anything new here), I think that relatively few people are going to see things unreservedly your way on this.
     
  19. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #19
    Perhaps instead of "truth" a better description would be a palatable, satisfying, and attractive explanation?

    No it doesn't. But that doesn't validate it as the provider of any truth or something that can be piggybacked onto established scientific facts (such as evolution above).

    But again because people want something or like something or find something comforting by no means validates it. It has to stand on it's own merit - especially if it is making the most extraordinary claims.

    But spiritualism and religion aren't mutually inclusive. One can still be spiritual without being religious. Taking wonder of science is a very valid spiritual experience.
     
  20. DiamondMac macrumors 68040

    DiamondMac

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    #20
    Water to wine

    Awesome
     
  21. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #21
    This won't convince anyone. They'll just change the script so that the missing link is elsewhere.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    While these may well be accepted scientific theory these days, they aren't directly related to belief in evolution.
     
  23. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #23
    I was commenting on the reasoning given for science and religion not being mutually exclusive. By "exactly" I thought you were replying and building on Lord Blackadder's post. I was not commenting on evolution exclusively.
     
  24. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #24
    Don't worry, they will trot out another dead monkey and so on and so on...


    it never ends... that and someone posting a thread as a means to bash Christians on MacRumors.

    Its fun watching people filled with so much angst lash out all the time :p
     
  25. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #25
    Please nobody reply to this. If you look at Shivetya's posting history he just drops in similar posts time and time again with no interest in a discussion.
     

Share This Page